Every election cycle, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance publishes its positions on ballot questions that relate to our mission of promoting fiscal responsibility, transparency, accountability, and economic opportunity in Massachusetts.

This November, Massachusetts voters will face nine statewide ballot questions. MassFiscal is taking a position on five of them.

Our 2026 recommendations are:
YES on Question 1
NO on Question 2
NO on Question 4
YES on Question 5
NO on Question 6

We do not take a position on Questions 3, 7, 8, and 9.

Please see our detailed positions below and make sure to get out and vote.

Vote Yes on Question 1 – Expand Public Records and State House Transparency
 

Massachusetts is the only state in the country to have all three branches of state government exempt from public records laws. This leaves state government far too difficult for taxpayers and the public to scrutinize. Question 1 would expand the Commonwealth’s public records law, including by making additional records of the Governor and Legislature subject to disclosure.

For years, MassFiscal has advocated for greater transparency and accountability on Beacon Hill. Massachusetts taxpayers deserve to know how their government operates, how decisions involving their money are made, and what their elected officials are doing on their behalf.

The overwhelming passage of the legislative audit ballot question in 2024 demonstrated that Massachusetts voters want more transparency from their state government. Question 1 represents another opportunity to move the Commonwealth in that direction.

MassFiscal supports YES on Question 1.

Vote No on Question 2 – Don’t Use the Ballot to Advance Union Enrollment

Question 2 would create collective bargaining rights for certain employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services.
MassFiscal believes Massachusetts should be focused on providing taxpayers with efficient and accountable public services, not expanding union enrollment through the ballot box. Public-sector collective bargaining has significant implications for government spending, management flexibility, and ultimately taxpayers. Any reforms to state workers will be nearly impossible once unionization is imposed.
The ballot initiative process should not be used to further expand the reach of public-sector unions and the costs and obligations that can accompany them.

MassFiscal supports NO on Question 2.

Vote No on Question 4 – Election Day Registration Without Sufficient Transparency

Question 4 would allow eligible Massachusetts residents to register to vote and cast a ballot on Election Day.
MassFiscal's concern is not simply when people are allowed to register. It is the lack of transparency surrounding Massachusetts voter registration information and upholding voter integrity.

Public confidence in elections depends on voters having the ability to independently scrutinize the systems used to maintain voter rolls and administer elections. Massachusetts should first provide greater transparency and public accountability surrounding voter registration information before significantly changing the registration process.

As it stands now, only Secretary Bill Galvin has access to all the state’s voter registration information. This is unacceptable. The public should be able to scrutinize this information, and it should be made public online and updated in real time. Additionally, the state must adopt voter ID when going out to vote.

Until Massachusetts provides the public with sufficient tools to monitor voter registration information and safeguard elections, MassFiscal does not believe the state should move to Election Day registration.

MassFiscal supports NO on Question 4.

Vote Yes on Question 5 – Give Taxpayers More Broad-Based Tax Rebates
 

Question 5 would strengthen Massachusetts' state revenue limit and increase the frequency and size of rebates returned to taxpayers when state revenues exceed that limit.

Massachusetts taxpayers need meaningful, stable tax relief.

When state government collects substantially more revenue than allowed under the state's revenue limit, that excess money should be returned to the taxpayers without loopholes. Massachusetts saw this principle in action when Chapter 62F triggered nearly $3 billion in rebates in 2022. Since then, the legislature made sure revenue collected under the new high-income tax bracket wasn’t factored into the equation to trigger a return.

Question 5 would make taxpayer rebates more frequent and ensure that the state's revenue limit serves as a meaningful check on the growth of government. Rather than allowing excess tax collections to fuel permanently higher spending, Massachusetts should return more of that money to taxpayers.

According to the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University, Question 5 would dramatically increase both the frequency and size of Chapter 62F tax refunds. The analysis estimates the proposal would trigger refunds two to four times as often and return two to seven times as much money to taxpayers. Averaged across both refund and non-refund years, Tufts estimates taxpayers would receive roughly $200 to $250 per year.

MassFiscal supports YES on Question 5.

Vote No on Question 6 – Don't Divert Sales Tax Revenue to a Dedicated Climate Fund

Question 6 would dedicate a portion of existing state sales tax revenue to a new Natural Resource Conservation Fund for environmental and climate-related purposes.

Massachusetts already spends billions of taxpayer dollars on environmental, energy, and climate programs. Earmarking a portion of sales tax revenue would further restrict how existing taxpayer dollars can be used and put additional pressure on other areas of the state budget.

Dedicated revenue streams also make it more difficult for lawmakers and taxpayers to reevaluate spending priorities as circumstances change. Instead of constitutionally or statutorily directing more existing revenue toward favored programs, state government should be required to prioritize spending through the regular budget process.

At a time when Massachusetts families and businesses continue to face a high cost of living and some of the highest energy costs in the country, automatically diverting additional taxpayer resources toward climate-related spending is the wrong direction.

MassFiscal supports NO on Question 6.